We were talking about different names/terms used for the Son of God, which bridegroom is one such term.
When you posted this I took it as what does Jesus’ role of a bridegroom have anything to do with our faith, which the answer is that it allows us to become children of God.
I would think so, but I didn’t really address this part of your post.
Yes, and as I pointed out there is one in the works as stated in the Revelation passage.
Very interesting read, thanks. It’s like Jung said (something like), “We probably dream all the time, but when we’re awake, we don’t notice.” (Not implying you’re a jungian, it was just something I came to think about.)
I don’t find your classification of different kinds of dreams relevant, as we’re talking about dreams as a phenomena, as such.
This is a bad excuse, but English isn’t my native language and sometimes I get lazy and don’t take the time this board deserves to translate my thoughts adequately. You’re right to point out this sloppy expression in my post, and I beg your pardon for not making the effort. What I meant was that if a phenomenon is generally accepted as something scentifically proveable, very few will question it. If, however, a phenomenon is not generally accepted as something scentifically (“popular view”) proveable, it will be scrutinized. This is not something I critize, quite the opposite.
(The edit function seems to be f+cked up, but of course the (“popular view”) part should be moved about fourteen words to the left.)
It goes to any sort of claim that dreams are subject to empirical study. What is subject to study is brain activity, and it may or may not represent a dream. If I were going to claim to be able to predict and measure dreams, I would want to be able to tell you when a dream would begin, how long it would last, and what it would be about. The truth is that we can’t even determine what it was about after the fact. Not without asking the subject.
Yes, and that’s too bad. It has been my experience that few people who make some particular claim have tested it at all themselves, but instead have accepted the assurances of others. Quite often in these debates, so-called scientific claims turn out to be indistinguishable from religious ones.
Most people here seem to be missing the relevant point: dreams are real, they go on entirely within your head. People’s experiences of ghosts and religious experiences are also real psychological phenomena, in that they also happen inside people’s heads. Until we get a PET machine that can reconstruct thoughts, we can’t prove what people are or are not thinking.
But with those last two (ghosts and religious experiences), many people want to then say that something outside their head is causing those thoughts. That’s where the question of objective reality comes in, and where things can be proved to a high degree.
I think therefore I am, but what about every other entity? Perhaps I’m the only one and all you are just in my head.
I agree with you, Liberal, but I got the feeling from the OP that s/he used the dream as an example of something “not proveable by natural science but yet something experienced by most of us and hence something un-dismissable.”
My point was that you can in fact prove that dreams are (if you can prove anything non physical), and thus the dream as an condender for the irrational point of view - the point of view which accept things un-physical, un- natural scientifican - is badly chosen. Compare the well known and widly accepted phenomenon of the dream with curious swinging of the lamp I was talking about
Now, dear Liberal, I’m a bit drunk and I’m not certain why we’re debating this.
But the thing is, if you like the OP wants to challenge the board with your (and others) un natural scientific experience, you shouldn’t pick one that is as easliy explainable, or measurably, or predictable, as dreams. You should pick the friggin lamp, cause no one knows what went on there and you can’t do it again, can you? - Well, can you?
That aside, I think we would have much fun debating this right now, rght here.
As I documented for you, dreams are neither explainable, measurable, nor predictable scientifically. If you claim otherwise, I’d like to see your data. What dreams have you explained, measured, or predicted? Alternatively, if you know of anyone who has accomplished this, I’d like to see their reports.
The lamp is uninteresting because you introduced the entity of super-nature. Contary to popular opinion, the opposite of scientific is not irrational. There are many sorts of claims that science is not designed to examine — for example, the claim that one plus one equals two. Proof of that claim requires logic.
If that’s the case, then all of your citations from the Bible are imaginary, and illuminate nothing.
I don’t think people doubt that people experience religious visions, near death experiences, deja vu, or God. Obviously some people are crazy, lying, or were under the influence of drugs, but you are going to be hard pressed to find someone that will agree that no one has ever experienced paranormal phenomenon. What you will find disagreement with is that the cause of these experiences are paranormal in nature.
Let’s take NDEs for example. We have copious amounts of people that have claim to have experienced a near death experience in some manner. The probability that all of these people are lying is practically zero. I certainly believe that people have had NDE. However, unlike lekatt, I don’t believe that this experiences were caused by a person’s soul or whatnot hanging around the room watching his body be resuscitated. I’d say, and I am by no means an expert, that the brain is generating these experiences. Certainly there is no soul floating around the room watching their body being saved.
We may have our slight disagreements, Lib, but if you’re ever in Portland, Oregon, the 15 year old single malt scotch of your choice is on me.
No one can prove the specific content of any reported dream, but no one claims the content CAN be proven. REM activity is easily verifiable and the experience of dreams is so universal that the phenomenon of dream activity is far beyond any legitimate dispute.
This is a bad analogy to claims of the supernatural, though, because self-reported dreams (with the attending verifiable neurochemical activity) are not handicapped by asserted violations of physical laws. Dreaming is not impossible. Ghosts ARE. There is no analogy.
Having said that, there is no question that people BELIEVE they have all kinds of paranormal experiences. No one says that everyone who claims to see a ghost or hear the voice of God is lying, only that they are mistaken about the cause.
Do those suffixes mean that you think they haven’t yet been explained, measured, or predicted? Or do you think that they are by their nature impossible to explain, measure, or predict using the scientific method?
I’d agree with the former, from what I know, but I see no reason to go along with the latter.
And once again: if we’re to find an equivalent to the OP’s challenge, it would be, “Prove that I don’t believe in God!” That’s a straw man challenge. Nobody’s making such a claim. The claim is that God doesn’t exist, not that you’ve never had an experience that led you to believe in God.
ANother equivalent, of course, would be, “Prove that I didn’t actually go back to high school last night and discover I was enrolled in a math class that I’d never gone to!” That would be pretty easy for me to prove.
The objective reality of religion that atheists reject is the existence of god, not the existence of the belief in god. It’s the belief, not God, that’s analogous to a dream.
Daniel
Now by George that is a very tempting offer! I’ve heard it’s great out there anyway — sort of the Charlotte of the West.
No, God is analogous to the dream; belief is analogous to the claim that one experienced a dream. Belief is, in fact, a claim — a doxastic claim. I claim to have experienced God, and I claim to have experienced dreams. I believe in the existence of both.
A dream is an experience: I don’t think anyone outside of aboriginal Australia claims that a dream has a reality external to the dreamer. There is literally no difference between saying, “I experienced a dream” and “I dreamed” and “I had a dream.” A belief, similarly, is an experience with no reality external to the believer (unless you’re some sort of new ager). God is, presumably, more than an experience.
Daniel
Presumably burundi is more than Left Hand of Dorkness. I really shouldn’t post before having my morning cup of coffee, because I always forget to log burundi out first. Of course, if I could remember not to post pre-coffee, I could remember to log her out as well. This is another permutation of the coffee paradox, I think.
Daniel
Not to worry. I used to do that all the time with Edlyn’s account. Anyway…
I don’t mind semantical arguments like yours in cases like this because it really is in part a semantical question. But semantical arguments require strict adherence to form, especially when you’re going to analogize. In this case, a dream is an event, specifically an hallucinated, dramatic event. (Source previously given.) To make an analogy, we need another event, such as a meeting with God. Now we can formulate your semantics.
I had a dream ~> I had a meeting with God.
I dreamed ~> I met God.
I experienced a dream ~> I experienced a meeting with God.
==========================
Note: I just noticed I misidentified you as Dio above. Consider yourself to have experienced the offer of an apology. 
The more apt linkage:
I had a subjective internal experience that makes no real sense in the light of day. I can reject it as representative of reality in any way.
You do not believe you are real?
A dream does not necessitate anything external. Dreaming about flying is not experiencing flying.